The influence of Peter Paul Ruben’s cannot be denied, and as we continue to describe a woman’s physique as “Rubenesque”, we can see clearly that his works are still important to society today. One of my favorites is called The Three Graces. My grandmother’s name is Grace, so the title made me take a second look at this piece. Rubens painted these beauties in 1639 in Museo Del Prado, Madrid, Spain. As I examined this work, I noticed something interesting about the three lovely ladies depicted: they are all at different angles. We see the back of one, and opposite front side views of the other two. When you combine these angles, it makes for one complete woman. It is an interesting approach to take when viewing The Three Graces. I like to think that in showing the various sides of a woman, Ruben’s was possibly expressing his own views on the many different “sides” that women can have.
Ruben’s enjoyed a unique relationship with the royalty that were the patrons of his art. “Rubens was appointed court painter by Albert and Isabella, the governors of the Low Countries. He received special permission to base his studio in Antwerp, instead of at their court in Brussels, and to also work for other clients.” (www.peterpaulrubens.org) it is this special permission that allowed Rubens to not only paint royal portraits for the governors, but also allowed him to paint independent works like the The Three Graces. I think it is this relationship that also points to the idea that Rubens enjoyed the ability to paint a work with a deeper idea and meaning than just royal portraits, or just three naked women.
In today’s society with our everyday depictions of women, it is refreshing to view a work that shows women as they are, lovely with curves and bodies that look real, instead of airbrushed. I like the idea that in looking back, we can remember what things have changed and what remains the same in our impressions, and our visions of the female form.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 20, 2010 at 7:07 pm
adamjohnmiller
Great observation about the three different angles! I did notice this when I first viewed the painting. Now that you’ve brought this point up, I can see the painting in a different style.
I’m glad you chose this painting. I liked the painting but couldn’t not think of what I would write about it. You’ve done this beautifully, however. Perhaps there is no coincidence for the different angles. Perhaps Ruben wanted to portray just one woman being sub-divided into three types of traits.
The naked characteristic of the painting is very deep. I have constantly praised an artist’s ability to capture humanism by withholding clothing from the main characters. I agree with you’re statement that it is very refreshing to seem a more “organic” portrayal of women.
June 21, 2010 at 9:27 pm
tknight8blog
I too found it refreshing that Rubens depicted women as they are rather than giving them elongated limbs and idealized features; moreover, I find this painting much more beautiful since it is not too aesthetic. I find your analysis of Rubens showing the different angles of a woman very insightful, and now I cannot see how that was not his intention.
I always find the naked pictures of women interesting though, as the realistic and idealized naked portraits of women do not really look like women. (As in, they have a lot of masculine features) I am not sure if I read this correctly somewhere, but I thought that during this time painters were still using men as their models.. Do you think that this is possible in this painting? I personally feel as though these women are much more feminine than some of the women were from other paintings; however, there are still masculine qualities about them.
Overall, I think you did a fantastic job of analyzing this piece and giving us a bit of extra information!